MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544231323 · doi:10.1139/gen-2016-0010

DNA barcoding for biosecurity: case studies from the UK plant protection program

2016· article· en· W2544231323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Hodgetts, Jozef C. Ostojá-Starzewski, Thomas Prior, Rebecca Lawson, J. Hall, Neil Boonham

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiosecurityBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its conception, DNA barcoding has seen a rapid uptake within the research community. Nevertheless, as with many new scientific tools, progression towards the point of routine deployment within diagnostic laboratories has been slow. In this paper, we discuss the application of DNA barcoding in the Defra plant health diagnostic laboratories, where DNA barcoding is used primarily for the identification of invertebrate pests. We present a series of case studies that demonstrate the successful application of DNA barcoding but also reveal some potential limitations to expanded use. The regulated plant pest, Bursephalenchus xylophilus, and one of its vectors, Monochamus alternatus, were found in dining chairs. Some traded wood products are potentially high risk, allowing the movement of longhorn beetles; Trichoferus campestris, Leptura quadrifasciata, and Trichoferus holosericeus were found in a wooden cutlery tray, a railway sleeper, and a dining chair, respectively. An outbreak of Meloidogyne fallax was identified in Allium ampeloprasum and in three weed species. Reference sequences for UK native psyllids were generated to enable the development of rapid diagnostics to be used for monitoring following the release of Aphalara itadori as a biological control agent for Fallopia japonica.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207